Sweet but toxic? Sucralose’s environmental risk and what it means for insurers

Artificial sweeteners, particularly sucralose (also known as E955), have long been promoted as healthier alternatives to sugar. Found in thousands of food, beverage, and cosmetic products worldwide, sucralose is valued for its zero-calorie content and chemical stability.

In 2024, the global sucralose market was valued at approximately $4.09 billion.¹

Despite its widespread use, sucralose is now facing growing scrutiny. In addition to concerns about its impact on human health, emerging research is drawing attention to its environmental persistence and potential harm to aquatic ecosystems.²

While toxicology debates continue, the trajectory is familiar: a common compound moves from uncontroversial to contested, and eventually into regulation and litigation. Insurers who observed the path of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) or MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) will recognise the early warning signs. For insurers, this emerging risk is more than an environmental issue – it is a potential source of multi-line exposure.

The persistent pollutant

Sucralose is a chlorinated derivative of sucrose engineered to resist metabolic breakdown in the human body. This same resilience extends to the environment, posing a growing concern for ecosystems. Research from the University of Florida has revealed that sucralose passes through wastewater treatment plants with minimal degradation, with an average removal efficiency of just 12 percent.³ As a result, it enters rivers, lakes, and even drinking water systems virtually unchanged.

Once released into aquatic ecosystems, sucralose can interact with microbial communities in complex and often harmful ways. Diatoms, microscopic algae that contribute to over 30 percent of marine food chain productivity, have shown population declines when exposed to sucralose. For example, in laboratory studies, freshwater diatoms experienced a sharp decline of more than 50 percent within just 12 hours of sucralose exposure.⁴ This effect is likely due to the algae mistaking sucralose for a nutrient, leading to metabolic disruption. Because diatoms form the foundation of many aquatic food chains, such disturbances can cascade through entire ecosystems causing broader ecological instability.⁵ A study found that sucralose exposure can cause DNA damage and genetic mutations in freshwater fish, further raising alarms about its long-term ecological impact.⁶

From ecological risk to insurance exposure

Emerging contaminants rarely trigger immediate losses. Instead, they follow a gradual path from widespread use to regulatory scrutiny, driven by improved detection methods, accumulating scientific evidence, and rising public concern. Sucralose appears to be on this path. It is ubiquitous, environmentally persistent, and increasingly debated in academic and regulatory circles. For insurers, this pattern is all too familiar. PFAS, MTBE, pharmaceutical residues, and microplastics have demonstrated how contaminants can transition from unregulated to financially material risks in a matter of a few years.  

Considering the environmental impact of sucralose and the precedent set by other micropollutants, developing effective strategies for its removal and recovery from water systems is likely to become increasingly necessary. Should authorities impose new standards requiring utilities or industrial facilities to remove sucralose from water, the financial implications could be substantial. Technologies capable of removing such persistent compounds, like activated carbon adsorption, ozonation, or specialised membrane filtration, require significant capital investment and ongoing operational costs. For example, ozonation and nanofiltration come at a steep price, ranging from £112 to £238 per 1,000 cubic metres of water treated.⁷

Litigation represents another emerging risk. As scientific consensus around sucralose’s ecological impact continues to build, legal action may follow. Environmental groups or public agencies could pursue claims for natural resource damages, arguing that lakes or rivers have been adversely affected and seeking restoration funds. Companies that release sucralose (whether intentionally or inadvertently) may face third-party liability. While these scenarios are still unfolding, they are becoming increasingly plausible amid growing awareness of these micropollutants.

Where sucralose exposure may sit in insurers portfolio

For insurers, sucralose may represent a previously overlooked exposure that could generate claims across several lines of coverage. For example: 

Environmental Liability and Pollution Coverage

Specialised environmental liability policies or pollution endorsements will likely be the first line of defence against contamination claims. These policies typically cover the costs of pollutant clean up and third-party environmental damage. If regulators mandate sucralose remediation or if claims allege ecosystem harm, affected companies may turn to these policies for legal defence, remediation expenses, and settlements. 

General Liability

Most companies maintain general liability insurance. While environmental harms are typically excluded through pollution clauses, general liability policies may be triggered in the absence of a clear pollution exclusion.

Product Liability and Recall 

Product liability insurance may also be relevant if sucralose is deemed environmentally defective and requires removing from the water supply. In such cases, product recall or contamination insurance might also apply, covering expenses related to withdrawing affected products, notifying customers, relabelling, and other associated costs. 

Business Interruption Insurance

Environmental disruptions can also lead to business interruption losses. If a facility is forced to halt operations due to sucralose related incidents or regulatory orders, it may seek compensation for lost income. 

Looking ahead 

Sucralose may appear insignificant given its ubiquity, but its environmental persistence presents a growing exposure that insurers may wish to consider. Many micropollutants, once considered benign, are now the subject of thousands of claims and settlements amounting to hundreds of billions of pounds.

Waiting for regulatory action or litigation to materialise could leave insurers vulnerable to costly claims and reputational damage. Proactive measures, such as assessing portfolio exposure, tightening policy language, and evaluating how emerging contaminants like sucralose fit within broader sustainability and risk frameworks, can help insurers manage these risks more effectively and stay ahead of the curve.

¹The Business Research Company, Sucralose Global Market Report (The Business Research Company, 2025)

²Matthew Derry and Alan Goddard, ‘Some artificial sweeteners are forever chemicals that could be harming aquatic life’ (The Conversation, 12 July 2024)

³Amelia G Westmoreland, Tracey B Schafer, Kendall E Breland, Anna R Beard and Todd Z Osborne, ‘Sucralose (C₁₂H₁₉Cl₃O₈) impact on microbial activity in estuarine and freshwater marsh soils’ (2024) 196 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 451

⁴Emma Bryce, ‘Artificial sweeteners don’t degrade in the human body or in nature’ (Anthropocene Magazine, 2 August 2024)

⁵Matthew Derry and Alan Goddard, ‘Some artificial sweeteners are forever chemicals that could be harming aquatic life’ (The Conversation, 12 July 2024)

⁶Jelena M. Đorđević, Ivana M. Petrović, and others, ‘Occurrence and fate of artificial sweeteners in aquatic environment’ (2020) 743 Science of The Total Environment 140714

⁷Raphael Ricardo Zepon Tarpani and Adisa Azapagic, ‘Life cycle costs of advanced treatment techniques for wastewater reuse and resource recovery from sewage sludge’ (2018) 204 Journal of Cleaner Production 832–847